I'm not wasting time with you, moving forward. You are insincere, disrespectful and just can't come to grips we all have opinions. I have grown tired of your personality, filled with character flaws, real talk. My advice to you, observe how you, not others, seem to keep clashing with people on these TUB boards. You have a history of this, foV. Your post responses leave a distaste in my mouth. How I wish these boards had an ignore feature. Perhaps the admins can look into creating such feature.

Do some introspection. You need a lot of work on your personality. You do not know how to interact with people of differing views.

Yes BB, we all have opinions - different opinions and ideas and beliefs and values and perspective of reality. Thanks for your opinions here regarding my behavioral and character flaws. Consider your opinions duly and publicly noted. While offering no defense or objection, I will say your claims are not without merit...I do indeed offer posts here and elsewhere that leave much to be desired and in need of improvement (in addition to my more brilliant posts - hahaha)...this is true.

I hope to (but do too often fail to) remain focused on opinions, ideas, statements and misstatements of fact, the contents of the text we share here, our unique perspectives and experiences of our lives, and how our experiences have shaped those. I relish those times when values, hopes, aspirations, and ideals are shared with others.

While I do not share your interest in or confidence in numerology or your claims regarding repeating 6's here, this is a matter of opinion...and you are certainly entitled to your own. Your first post here on the topic implied a question - coincidence? And then went on to declare an opinion I find contradictory to the UB....which does not concern you because you also declare the authors (the revelator authors as you put it) ...."....are not exempt from cognitive bias. The revelators are subject to error and sin." You have also claimed an opinion that subjective opinions are to be considered "critical analysis".

You have posted many such opinions here and elsewhere over the years that I disagree with (as do and have many others by the way - disagreed with us both). I will attempt to keep my opinions focused on your opinions and ideas in the future. It is unfortunate that I have failed in that regard to date.

But as this is a study group site for the discussion of and opinions regarding the UB, I will continue to respond to your opinions and claims with my own understanding of the UB and by posting the text itself. I do find the book's best and clearest representations come directly from the authors' own words.

Me being a literalist with confidence in the intentions and integrity of the authors compared to your doubts about them and your rejection of their claims regarding the Papers purpose and presentation of fact and truth plus your stated preference of studying the UB as a metaphorical work subject to bias, evil, and sin, rather than a text book of factual knowledge of reality does offer challenges to our study here together.

Pointing out some of my many flaws from time to time will not deter my participation here however. Please feel free to ignore me as you will....or criticize me as you find appropriate. Best wishes. May our good humor become a bridge over troubled waters now and in the future!

I'm not wasting time with you, moving forward. You are insincere, disrespectful and just can't come to grips we all have opinions. I have grown tired of your personality, filled with character flaws, real talk. My advice to you, observe how you, not others, seem to keep clashing with people on these TUB boards. You have a history of this, foV. Your post responses leave a distaste in my mouth. How I wish these boards had an ignore feature. Perhaps the admins can look into creating such feature.

Do some introspection. You need a lot of work on your personality. You do not know how to interact with people of differing views.

BB,

Says the pot to the kettle.

140:3.17 (1571.4) “You are commissioned to save men, not to judge them. At the end of your earth life you will all expect mercy; therefore do I require of you during your mortal life that you show mercy to all of your brethren in the flesh. Make not the mistake of trying to pluck a mote out of your brother’s eye when there is a beam in your own eye. Having first cast the beam out of your own eye, you can the better see to cast the mote out of your brother’s eye."

Our differences of opinion got me to reflecting upon a couple of my favorite areas of text from the Papers.

1. Philosophy of Religion

103:1.1 (1129. The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique—no two mortals being alike—it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.

103:1.2 (1130.1) When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

103:1.3 (1130.2) While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric—circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

103:1.4 (1130.3) Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

103:1.5 (1130.4) That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

On humor and reversion:

48:4.15 (549.2) When we are tempted to magnify our self-importance, if we stop to contemplate the infinity of the greatness and grandeur of our Makers, our own self-glorification becomes sublimely ridiculous, even verging on the humorous. One of the functions of humor is to help all of us take ourselves less seriously. Humor is the divine antidote for exaltation of ego.

48:4.16 (549.3) The need for the relaxation and diversion of humor is greatest in those orders of ascendant beings who are subjected to sustained stress in their upward struggles. The two extremes of life have little need for humorous diversions. Primitive men have no capacity therefor, and beings of Paradise perfection have no need thereof. The hosts of Havona are naturally a joyous and exhilarating assemblage of supremely happy personalities. On Paradise the quality of worship obviates the necessity for reversion activities. But among those who start their careers far below the goal of Paradise perfection, there is a large place for the ministry of the reversion directors.

48:4.17 (549.4) The higher the mortal species, the greater the stress and the greater the capacity for humor as well as the necessity for it. In the spirit world the opposite is true: The higher we ascend, the less the need for the diversions of reversion experiences. But proceeding down the scale of spirit life from Paradise to the seraphic hosts, there is an increasing need for the mission of mirth and the ministry of merriment. Those beings who most need the refreshment of periodic reversion to the intellectual status of previous experiences are the higher types of the human species, the morontians, angels, and the Material Sons, together with all similar types of personality. *

48:4.18 (549.5) Humor should function as an automatic safety valve to prevent the building up of excessive pressures due to the monotony of sustained and serious self-contemplation in association with the intense struggle for developmental progress and noble achievement. Humor also functions to lessen the shock of the unexpected impact of fact or of truth, rigid unyielding fact and flexible ever-living truth. The mortal personality, never sure as to which will next be encountered, through humor swiftly grasps—sees the point and achieves insight—the unexpected nature of the situation be it fact or be it truth.

48:4.19 (549.6) While the humor of Urantia is exceedingly crude and most inartistic, it does serve a valuable purpose both as a health insurance and as a liberator of emotional pressure, thus preventing injurious nervous tension and overserious self-contemplation. Humor and play—relaxation—are never reactions of progressive exertion; always are they the echoes of a backward glance, a reminiscence of the past. Even on Urantia and as you now are, you always find it rejuvenating when for a short time you can suspend the exertions of the newer and higher intellectual efforts and revert to the more simple engagements of your ancestors.

I think fragments we possess that cross-reference with TUB can be deemed reliable. Plus, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some revelations from John not found in TUB but cross reference with older Hebrew religious texts. They are valid to me as well.

My position basically is to vet the text, just as I do TUB revelations. I don't blindly go into a revelation without imposing a critical analysis on it. And for the record, not every revelation in TUB I accept as righteous or agreeable in value. Many Divine forces that have delivered revelations to us are subject to error and sin. In my eyes, the Bible, TUB and all other purportedly divine texts are fallible.

My position is not up for debate. I am merely disclaiming it so you know where I stand. But people are free to ask me questions and discuss it with me.

Hey, BB. Elsewhere in this forum you are now denying you ever said this. What gives?

Nope, I am not denying it. Here is my position and hopefully it will bring this issue to rest...

I reject the race papers in whole. They originate in a mind (contact commission) reflecting the racial climate of a pre-civil rights, scientific racism era. I accept the spiritual revelations but filtered through my autorevelation; I especially accept the mind and afterlife papers. I wholeheartedly accept the moral teachings of Jesus. The literal interpretation of TUB to me is the baseline upon which numerous, if not, infinite personal interpretations rest, so I do not limit myself to it; in fact, I actively seek to go beyond it. The historical narratives, for example, the rebellion, I accept, in toto; however I believe there are factual errors in them.

TUB is the work of men inspired by divine beings (from the rarefied to the most material) like any other religious or spiritual text. In a nutshell, this is my position on TUB and it is NOT up for debate.

Agon D. Onter wrote:

brooklyn_born wrote:

I think fragments we possess that cross-reference with TUB can be deemed reliable. Plus, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some revelations from John not found in TUB but cross reference with older Hebrew religious texts. They are valid to me as well.

My position basically is to vet the text, just as I do TUB revelations. I don't blindly go into a revelation without imposing a critical analysis on it. And for the record, not every revelation in TUB I accept as righteous or agreeable in value. Many Divine forces that have delivered revelations to us are subject to error and sin. In my eyes, the Bible, TUB and all other purportedly divine texts are fallible.

My position is not up for debate. I am merely disclaiming it so you know where I stand. But people are free to ask me questions and discuss it with me.

Hey, BB. Elsewhere in this forum you are now denying you ever said this. What gives?

Nope, I am not denying it. Here is my position and hopefully it will bring this issue to rest...

I reject the race papers in whole. They originate in a mind (contact commission) reflecting the racial climate of a pre-civil rights, scientific racism era. I accept the spiritual revelations but filtered through my autorevelation; I especially accept the mind and afterlife papers. I wholeheartedly accept the moral teachings of Jesus. The literal interpretation of TUB to me is the baseline upon which numerous, if not, infinite personal interpretations rest, so I do not limit myself to it; in fact, I actively seek to go beyond it. The historical narratives, for example, the rebellion, I accept, in toto; however I believe there are factual errors in them.

TUB is the work of men inspired by divine beings (from the rarefied to the most material) like any other religious or spiritual text. In a nutshell, this is my position on TUB and it is NOT up for debate.

Agon D. Onter wrote:

brooklyn_born wrote:

I think fragments we possess that cross-reference with TUB can be deemed reliable. Plus, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some revelations from John not found in TUB but cross reference with older Hebrew religious texts. They are valid to me as well.

My position basically is to vet the text, just as I do TUB revelations. I don't blindly go into a revelation without imposing a critical analysis on it. And for the record, not every revelation in TUB I accept as righteous or agreeable in value. Many Divine forces that have delivered revelations to us are subject to error and sin. In my eyes, the Bible, TUB and all other purportedly divine texts are fallible.

My position is not up for debate. I am merely disclaiming it so you know where I stand. But people are free to ask me questions and discuss it with me.

Hey, BB. Elsewhere in this forum you are now denying you ever said this. What gives?

As I said. Thanks for the confirmations. You do not believe the claims of the UB authors or its contents. Cool beans. Not news. Still curious about your definition of "critical analysis". It still appears you take literally that which you agree with. Nothing related to critical analysis about it. That's called prejudice. Perhaps you can define and describe what you consider critical analysis. And also your definition of "revelation"....as your use of the term also seems to be contrary to the definitions provided in the UB.

To brooklyn_born, fanofVan, and anyone else here who has an axe to grind with another member,

If someone's position does not please you, you are not free here to call them out with sarcasm and/or unkind words. You are not free to be confrontational and call their sincerity into question. With so many wonderful IDEAS to discuss in The Urantia Book, how is it that so often these discussions turn into backbiting free-for-alls? It is exhausting...

Of all the teachings of the Master, one of the most fundamental is the Rule of Living; treating others - not just as you wish to be treated - but as you think HE would treat them. I advise all of those who cannot exhibit kindness, tact, tolerance, and basic common courtesy towards others to please leave the discussion to those who can.

The management reserves the right to lock any topic that gets out of hand; this one is on the verge...

To brooklyn_born, fanofVan, and anyone else here who has an axe to grind with another member,

If someone's position does not please you, you are not free here to call them out with sarcasm and/or unkind words. You are not free to be confrontational and call their sincerity into question. With so many wonderful IDEAS to discuss in The Urantia Book, how is it that so often these discussions turn into backbiting free-for-alls? It is exhausting...

Of all the teachings of the Master, one of the most fundamental is the Rule of Living; treating others - not just as you wish to be treated - but as you think HE would treat them. I advise all of those who cannot exhibit kindness, tact, tolerance, and basic common courtesy towards others to please leave the discussion to those who can.

The management reserves the right to lock any topic that gets out of hand; this one is on the verge...